Commons:Deletion requests/File:Leonardo Dicaprio - World Premiere ‘One Battle after Another’.jpg

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Add {{subst:delete-subst|REASON (mandatory)}} on the page
Notify the uploader with {{subst:idw|File:Leonardo Dicaprio - World Premiere ‘One Battle after Another’.jpg}}--~~~~
On the log, add :
{{Commons:Deletion requests/File:Leonardo Dicaprio - World Premiere ‘One Battle after Another’.jpg}}

File:Leonardo Dicaprio - World Premiere ‘One Battle after Another’.jpg

Reasons for deletion request -MagicLantern19 (talk) 06:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC) This image is clearly AI-generated, which is forbidden to be used on pages of living or deceased persons. This image is used on many pages. I am a photographer, and have a natural eye for photoshopped or tampered-with pictures, so to most people, these details can go easily missed. If you cannot spot it easily; look at the eyes, the whiskers and beard stubble, and most noticeably DiCaprio's shirt collar-- it's clearly AI imagery.[reply]

Delete. This isn't a typical AI-generated image, but I agree that it isn't natural either; I think it may have been a real photo which was inappropriately upscaled using AI tools. The shirt is the most obvious "tell" - it looks like a painting, not a real piece of fabric. Omphalographer (talk) 06:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it looks like a painting is a stretch, but, definitely, the shirt is the biggest tell, and also DiCaprio's—or rather the AI's simulation of him—beard stubble on his upper lip; take a close look at that and you can clearly see the AI "guessing" how to render each individual hair-- it looked off to me from afar (but again, as I said I have experience as a photographer), but it's a dead giveaway once you zoom in. And the eyes just look so lifeless. Another detail is the sport jacket-- the lapels on either side of his shoulders are not even; the bottom part of the left one is slightly longer than the right. You can also see, overall, that the AI is having difficulty rendering the details based on DiCaprio's profile being slightly turned—meaning it's not a head-on, even image—and it struggles to be proportionally correct. There's definite warping going on throughout the entire photograph, no question. So, were it not for all of those issues, I'm sure it would be passable. MagicLantern19 (talk) 05:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a side, I tried to find a possible reference that this picture may have been taken from (or at least one that could be similar to it)... I have not found a single one that features this wardrobe that DiCaprio is wearing, or even the density of the lighting for that matter. This is a purely generated, but instructed, artificial intelligence image. Sickening, if you ask me. But nevertheless it is breaking Wikipedia rules and has no place here... especially not on prominent, public-wide pages... which it is. Again, I'm completely shocked as to how this has gone unnoticed for as long as it has. MagicLantern19 (talk) 05:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.justjared.com/photo-gallery/5199966/leonardo-dicaprio-one-battle-after-another-premiere-01/ is another photo from the same event, with DiCaprio in these clothes.

The Flickr user has other celebrity photos in their collection which aren't upscaled this strikingly. Perhaps he only managed a blurry or distant photo in this case, and asked an AI tool to clean it up.

Keep as in use, but we should tag it as upscaled so downstream projects know what they're getting. Belbury (talk) 10:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a darkly colored jacket, and a lightly colored shirt, with a nondescript background, and featuring DiCaprio with the same hair length and style(s), yes; but in the AI photo, his shirt is creme white, almost blue, his jacket is definitely blue and the background in the AI photo is nowhere to be found in any of the photos out there for the ONE BATTLE AFTER ANOTHER premiere. It's an AI-generated photo, period. It was not derived from any work, or given anything as reference material. It was likely just given a prompt that requested a photo from the premiere; and the AI gave its best "rendering" based on what it knew. It has no place being on Wikipedia—a public space—and is frankly creepy. Its very presence on such an often-utilized-platform misleads the very public it's trying to inform. This photo has absolutely no reason to stay as there are are COUNTLESS other acceptable DiCaprio photos available for open use on Commons. I plead with you to change your vote. There is literally no reason to keep it. MagicLantern19 (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And, if that explanation weren't enough—AS I'VE ALREADY SAID BEFORE—the AI photo is DISTORTED! On Wikipedia Commons guidelines somewhere also forbids usage of any photos that distort or deviate from its original source. Rather the photo being "naturally" distorted through being stretched or having a filter over it (not allowed either), the AI's re-rendering of the slightly-turned DiCaprio photo struggles to properly scale the anatomy of his face and body; not all of the features line up in the same direction that the photo SEEMS to be facing. It's not hard to spot if you just look at it close enough. It looks odd from afar to begin with, as I've said. Just because YOU don't notice anything outrightly wrong with it, doesn't mean that the photo should be "kept" because it's "in use". That's bogus rational, I don't care who you are. MagicLantern19 (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the fact that this photo—which is on every goddamn DiCaprio page, in every language—has not been recognized or reported as AI, nor its very usage protested by anyone else, is very sad to me. MagicLantern19 (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the unnatural "pasty" textures all over the entire "photo" (on the "wardrobe" and on the "skin" of the figure; and what the user Omphalographer had pointed out as looking like "a painting") which is supposed to be a realistic, present image of the individual (WHICH EXIST ON COMMONS), not a "simulation" of him. For the same reason a drawing would not be acceptable of a figure, especially if other photos are completely usable and available for use. MagicLantern19 (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should have linked the policy: COM:INUSE says that an image that's being used by another project is considered to be in scope, so can't be deleted on the grounds of it seeming misleading or of poor quality to us.

Commons hosts thousands of AI upscaled photos including some absolutely awful ones. The English Wikipedia has a MOS guideline about never using upscaled photos, but Wikidata (whose data automatically populates a lot of non-English infoboxes) doesn't seem to take a view, and other projects presumably vary.

I agree that it's a misleading distorted image and should be flagged as having been AI-upscaled (in fact I'll do that now, and remove it from enwiki). But having seen and deleted and discussed a lot of these kinds of photos in the past, it definitely is an AI-upscale of a lower quality photograph (this is clear from the hair and the fabric lines), rather than something fully generated from a text prompt. The slight blueness of the otherwise identical shirt and jacket seem like a simple change in lighting or white balance. Belbury (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize as I did not know about this policy, nor was I aware of THAT AMOUNT of Wiki-approved AI photos... yikes. Thank you for your efforts. I feel like there should be more guidelines and rules on boundaries of the usage AI photos on Wikipedia... it's an indefinite part of the future from now on—whether we like it or not—we have to learn to not misuse or abuse it.

Based on what you've just linked alone, there seems to be little finesse or care going on; as there probably are few rules on this since it is only a recent issue. I'm not sure where maybe if there's a discussion board somewhere else I could contribute to regarding that. It seems to me like a pretty necessary discussion to have as not much has been done about it. I understand, from personal experience, that there are a lot of tug-of-wars on Wikipedia in general, and very little that's beneficial actually gets done as a result of so many "contributors" that have a skewed idea of right and wrong. MagicLantern19 (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The English Wikipedia has a strongly enforced policy against AI-generated images (WP:AIIMAGES) and a clear MOS statement about upscaling (MOS:AIUPSCALE). You'll hardly see any AI imagery on Wikipedia.

Commons is a separate website that has a different approach, because it serves a different purpose. But it's not an issue we haven't thought about or discussed before: people started uploading AI generated images here the second that the technology existed, and we have various rules to delete it quickly when inappropriate. For the guidelines see Commons:AI-generated media - and Commons talk:AI-generated media is probably the discussion board that you're looking for. Belbury (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have previously read both pages you have just linked. But again, the reason that this photo does not apply to those exceptions that they give examples of is because I have yet to find the photo that you claim this AI is supposedly sourced and upscaled from. I submit that the entire photo was created using the AI image generator technology based on, probably, an accumulation of photos from the OBAA premiere event (I have yet to be proven wrong on this stance). Nowhere on those two pages does it specify something specific like that being allowed, therefore, that's why I believe that this file should be deleted, no questions asked, because it's not just an "upscaled" image, but entirely generated and thus fake; which, from my understanding, is not something that can remain as an image on Wikipedia, based on some of these rules. MagicLantern19 (talk) 09:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is most likely upscaled using Lightroom AI enhance feature of a photo the photographer took. I do not think this is wholly generated. Under different lights, a black suit and white shirt can appear bluer, so this is not evidence of AI generation. Sevgonlernassau (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, find me the photo done from that angle, and then I'll agree. I couldn't find it, and I searched the web for an hour. It doesn't exist. Not sure what leads you believe it was "upscaled using Lightroom AI enhance feature of a photo the photographer took" other than a whim. No, it was ENTIRELY generated using AI; because that backdrop is not ANYWHERE to be found in the setting of the Another Battle After Another premiere. The fact is this user generates tons of prohibited imagery using AI, and this photo should not stand on Wikipedia Commons for the very reason that it is misleading and misrepresenting a famous figure falsely. Now, if the caption were renamed something like "AI simulation of DiCaprio at OBAA premiere" then I would agree to compromise on that rather than deletion. Just the same: if a painting or an illustration or a wax figure of X individual is allowed on Commons, it is because it is indicated and specified within the title (and text) that it is NOT actually them, but rather a painting, illustration or wax figure of them. Case in point: any user should not mislead and give off the idea that a person is actually a person if it is not. Beyond that; come on, guys, this is just common sense! Where are your principles? GET RID OF IT! There is a wellsprung of ACTUAL images of DiCaprio on Commons. This has literally no reason to stay, and has more than enough reason to leave.MagicLantern19 (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that backdrop is not ANYWHERE to be found in the setting of the Another Battle After Another premiere - the background appears to be Teyana Taylor's ear and hair from the movie poster, and there were backdrops of character photos at the Hollywood premiere, at this scale.

Flickr user Ron Raffety also took File:Actor Benicio Del Toro - World Premier 'One Battle After Another".jpg at the same event, and that photo does not appear to be upscaled in any way. I think this is just a photographer who was disappointed that his photo of DiCaprio didn't come out well, and he used an AI process on it before uploading it to Flickr. The reason we can't find Raffety's original photo on the web is because he chose not to upload it. Belbury (talk) 10:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is and should not pertain to any other image but THIS ONE. Good catch on the hair and air, but the original photo could have been deleted for all we know! The AI one nevertheless is the only one that is available on the internet; thus that is still not really a valid argument that "It's okay to keep this photo because it was upscaled from a photo that was actually taken"; I don't think it really matters. The image in question that it under deletion discussion is all that's here. It doesn't matter what exists out in the ether; what's here is here. By itself, it should not represent DiCaprio because the AI "guesses", "fills in" and "makes up" his anatomical proportions and facial features; and is not a faithful and truthful image. It's actually objectively and justifiably bad no matter if it were filter or not. Now; the image COULD represent his likeness; I.E., if the file name were changed to "AI simulation of Leonardo Dicaprio - World Premiere ‘One Battle after Another’.jpg", as well as an indication of this in the description, then I think that would be acceptable. And, once again, not sure why everyone is fighting so much debating back and forth for this image to stay when there exists so many acceptable and commendable, reliable/accurate DiCaprio images on Commons. Considering the wellsprung of images that are deleted on Commons for less reason than this, I see no reason why this should not be booted too. MagicLantern19 (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination - file is no longer in use. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]